machaseh wrote: » Sigh... What use is it to keep complaining about 'there will be too many buses on this corridor'. This is all that can be done with current infrastructure. Rail-based transit projects are being worked on on their own pace, it's no point to keep complaining abuot how corridor X should be served by a luas instead of busconnects. Even if they would decide to do taht on the spot (which they wont for various reasons, such as money), it is going to take many years before the first luas would run there.
Last Stop wrote: » You’re right we should just stay quiet and waste 2bn on a project which will be above capacity from day 1!
machaseh wrote: » Then write your TD. Yes, luas would be better, but this thread is about buses, not about the luas. Even when the luases are eventually built, the core bus corridors will still be necessary in many places.
Last Stop wrote: » If they are capable of handling a frequency of more than 2 minutes then why are we reforming it? The current system is dysfunctional and needs change. Part of this change should include addressing capacity issues where necessary. Without wishing to go off topic, the level of CPO required for a Luas Line are less than that required for Busconnects. Running a Luas to UCD removes the need for a CBC on Nutley Lane. The CBN report considers BRT to UCD and therefore doesn’t include this spine! It’s the exact same on the kimmage corridor. A Luas to Rathfarnham found that 150 properties would be impacted, the Rathfarnham CBC impacts 225! While I appreciate no plan is going to be perfect, the current plan simply doesn’t work! 3 of the corridors are above design capacity from day 1. There seems to be a view that everyone should just accept that more bus lanes is better and don’t mention any flaws. Dublin deserves better!!
LXFlyer wrote: » My point above regarding the bus frequencies was stating that some of the routes already have that volume of buses which you keep ignoring. We are still going to have pinch points and congestion but the plans will improve the flow along the corridors. And no it won’t be perfect, nor will the journey times be anything like some of the suggestions at the outset, but it’s the best that can be done when you take the political realities into account.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Can you please provide links to your fact and figures in future
Last Stop wrote: » I haven’t ignored that. I’ve replied saying that the current system is dysfunctional and needs reform. Part of that reform should include sufficient design capacity to meet demand. The current proposal clearly doesn’t do that! While I agree that pinch points will be inevitable and some case unavoidable, you can’t class the N4 between M50 and Heuston as a pinch point!! In my view it’s not the best that can be done though! Yes the bus routes are a significant improvement but they’ve highlighted certain corridors that need greater investment. The idea of splitting the network redesign and the infrastructure should be considered in which case high demand corridors could be replaced by Luas lines or similar.
Last Stop wrote: » The CBCs wouldn’t be necessary in a number of cases, that’s the point!
LXFlyer wrote: » Well unless there’s a complete reversal of policy by the NTA, I’m afraid that you’re going to be disappointed. You need to reflect on the political realities as well. I’d love a metro to SW Dublin but it’s not on the radar and I’m focusing on what is likely to happen rather than a wish list.
Last Stop wrote: » The Ballsbridge - UCD and kimmage corridors are not included in the GDA transport strategy which is the main policy document. The reason they are now included is because BRT was dropped. That’s a change in policy is it not?
LXFlyer wrote: » Well I will agree with you on one thing. The bus stops on the Chapelizod bypass are in my view a nonsense and a disaster waiting to happen as they will just cause a “bus jam”. Far better to leave the bypass as non-stop and provide a decent separate service for Chapelizod village.
Qrt wrote: » Are they not only planning one stop at Chapelizod Hill? I feel that would be useful for connectivity.
LXFlyer wrote: » A stop on either side of the road (i.e. an inbound and an outbound stop). The problem I have with it is that if traffic is in any way bad, buses stopping there are going to cause a backlog of buses behind one another and unable to overtake. Stopping there (certainly at peak times) will negate the benefits of using the bypass over the traditional route for most of the passengers from further out.
Also, let’s be honest the existing buses along that section are all jammed full before they get to the location where those stops are proposed
LXFlyer wrote: » Of course buses will leapfrog one another, that’s normal and to be expected, but the issue here is that if traffic is backed up that might not be that easy to do at this location, especially outbound.
Last Stop wrote: » This problem is replicated across the network. You cannot (and let’s be honest should not) rely on the road network to prevent buses bunching. That’s why the CBCs have a design capacity of 30 per hour. That’s also assuming that all 39 buses are timed to run at a frequency and evenly spaced. Given the number of routes and in particular peak only routes, this is unlikely. Chances are you’ll have some of the peak only buses leapfrogging spine routes only to be leapfrogged themselves when they stop next. Another problem that has been raised before and is only going to get worse!
LXFlyer wrote: » On the Chapelizod bypass? No there isn’t - it’s on stilts as it is, and a recessed stop is not on the plans.
CatInABox wrote: » Any chance of a link to these docs Last Stop? I'd like to read them.
murphaph wrote: » It's not all on stilts. At Chapelizod Hill Road it isn't. Especially outbound there is room to recess the stop.
Last Stop wrote: » In a well designed system with realistic headways leapfrogging is not normal or to be expected. Again this problem is replicated across the network, which is why CBCs are designed for 2 minute frequencies, anything more than this and you’re almost guaranteed a bus jam
LXFlyer wrote: » I’m not getting into that again, it’s a broken record. I’m talking specifically about this bus stop location as it is not suitable in my view period. There’s no space for a recess and the traffic lanes can be jammed up at peak times. With BE and other private coaches there too, it is totally unsuitable in my view.
Last Stop wrote: » Absolutely!! and the only way to solve that problem is to reduce the frequency of buses
LXFlyer wrote: » Well actually not having the stop there at all is the sensible solution.
Last Stop wrote: » Along the entire N4? While I know you’re referring to that specific stop, the issue is repeated along the entire corridor.
LXFlyer wrote: » It really isn’t. Buses can overtake at the other locations. Look please stop trying to bring your other arguments into my point. I am talking particularly about one single bus stop location which is just not suitable.
